Russia needs nerf

[ComaPrison]

The title of this thread is wrong. It should read 'Asia needs buff'

I have to agree. The closest any European country has come to conquering any sizable region of Asia has been Britain's virtual vassalization of what is now India. Aside from that, and the puny colonial possessions of HK, Macau, and tiny diplomatic safe-zones in Shanghai, Asia had been essentially resistant to European conquest on the massive scale that EU4 often depicts. That EU4 often permits massive conquests of Asia to occur, but not the reverse, instructs us of a massive bias on the part of PI. Isn't it true that by the end of most games, vast swathes of Asia belong to a European/Ottoman power? Now how closely is that reflected by historical realities? Absolutely not at all. Europe never had remotely enough spare manpower to make it so. This vast difference in manpower levels should be reflected in the game's manpower ratings for European vs Asian provinces. Superior technology to win formal military conflicts? Sure! But outright occupation and incorporation is beyond fantastical, requiring thousands of times more manpower than any European power could muster. It borders on mental. So tell me why it happens almost as an inevitably in virtually every game of EU4? Almost as if Asia is just another North/South America, Australia, or Africa.

 

[Novacat]

Hong Kong was captured after EU4 time period during the Opium Wars, Macau started off as an uncolonized part of China that the Chinese decided to later let the Portugese stay.

 

[Pornek]

For somone who wasnt online for the past week, this thread reads like Novacat vs all.

 

[Colombo]

Same can be said about Castille, but none is complaining about Castille....

So, lets look at Castile. Castile is in constant threat against France. North African conquest was sort of improved by berber ideas. Castile isn't as much stronger against Aragon, so one midsized country can change the powerplay in this region.

Castile land expansion is stopped in its little realm as they are friend with Portugal and so they can conquer Aragon. But not much more. Any other expansion have to be by ships, but in that, they can be much contested. Even North African countries could hope for win against naval Castile in good circumstances and by that protect themselves or just play positional war and deny Castile to build large transport navy. Even later in game, naval supermancy isn't so awfully diverted against its neighbourhoods (if we don't count african tribals) and one can sort of hope to protect with their navy and protect against awfully large navy invasion, so those bits that land could be sort of successfully defeated as they lacks proper home territory.

 

[Novacat]

For somone who wasnt online for the past week, this thread reads like Novacat vs all.

More like Russian nationalists vs everyone else.

 

[ComaPrison]

Hong Kong was captured after EU4 time period during the Opium Wars, Macau started off as an uncolonized part of China that the Chinese decided to later let the Portugese stay.

Thanks for clarifying on the history. My point still stands about Asia in general (and Ming in particular) being gimped (relative to historical accuracy) and needing a buff. Namely, a manpower buff.

 

[Novacat]

Thanks for clarifying on the history. My point still stands about Asia in general (and Ming in particular) being gimped (relative to historical accuracy) and needing a buff. Namely, a manpower buff.

Ming is fine. It was a dying state that did not even survive the EU4 era, it was conquered and annexed in its entirety by the Manchus. Whom also conquered the area currently inhabited by the Oirat Horde as well as successfully fought off Russian incursion into its Manchurian homelands. If anything, the powerful potential of Ming through its NIs, Decisions and Faction system is very generous.

Its the Manchus that need a buff. This will enable it to more easily resist Japanese/Russian aggression, as well as conquer Ming and the Oirats.

 

[ComaPrison]

Ming is fine. It was a dying state that did not even survive the EU4 era, it was conquered and annexed in its entirety by the Manchus. Whom also conquered the area currently inhabited by the Oirat Horde as well as successfully fought off Russian incursion into its Manchurian homelands. If anything, the powerful potential of Ming through its NIs, Decisions and Faction system is very generous.

Its the Manchus that need a buff. This will enable it to more easily resist Japanese/Russian aggression, as well as conquer Ming and the Oirats.

Good point about Manchu. But they need a special event that gives them Core over all of Ming, because historically, they did not need to conquer all of the territory in order to claim the throne. They mostly only needed to take the capital, and automatically got the rest of the country by virtue of getting the Mandate of Heaven. They also need some major boosts to their national ideas.

Also, Siberian provinces shouldn't be giving Russia such a huge manpower boost, since the poor agricultural climate would prevent it from sustaining the necessary food production. It's completely historically inaccurate that Russia can field such huge stacks. There is no historical precedent for this, as even at its peak, Russia only fielded a fraction of the manpower that China had. Russia's advantage over China was always in relatively modern technology, relatively modern tactics, etc.

 

[Novacat]

Blame that on Russia's NIs. Basically, Paradox set up Russian NIs to adhere to the 1900s stereotype of Russians being human waves of poorly trained conscripts.

 

[ComaPrison]

Blame that on Russia's NIs. Basically, Paradox set up Russian NIs to adhere to the 1900s stereotype of Russians being human waves of poorly trained conscripts.

That 1900s stereotype is demonstrably false, and is a horrible basis upon which to design Russia's NIs.

Hong Kong was captured after EU4 time period during the Opium Wars, Macau started off as an uncolonized part of China that the Chinese decided to later let the Portugese stay.

Just going back to this for a moment. If anything, that proves my point precisely. Europe never had the ability or manpower to conquer Asia in the way that the game tends to portray. The best they could manage was GB taking HK by virtue of gunboat diplomacy (which can be represented in game by higher diplo technology level for better ships and better naval morale), and as you said, that wasn't until after the EU4 time period.

 

[Pilot00]

So, lets look at Castile. Castile is in constant threat against France. North African conquest was sort of improved by berber ideas. Castile isn't as much stronger against Aragon, so one midsized country can change the powerplay in this region.

Castile land expansion is stopped in its little realm as they are friend with Portugal and so they can conquer Aragon. But not much more. Any other expansion have to be by ships, but in that, they can be much contested. Even North African countries could hope for win against naval Castile in good circumstances and by that protect themselves or just play positional war and deny Castile to build large transport navy. Even later in game, naval supermancy isn't so awfully diverted against its neighbourhoods (if we don't count african tribals) and one can sort of hope to protect with their navy and protect against awfully large navy invasion, so those bits that land could be sort of successfully defeated as they lacks proper home territory.

Explain to me how then how it ends up colonising half the word (if it gets the iberian marrige 3/4s of it) and always stays on top every time. The biggest loss I have seen the Spiniards suffer is the Pirenese (spelling) to France and that happens only 1/10 times.

 

[Rubidium]

That 1900s stereotype is demonstrably false, and is a horrible basis upon which to design Russia's NIs.



Just going back to this for a moment. If anything, that proves my point precisely. Europe never had the ability or manpower to conquer Asia in the way that the game tends to portray. The best they could manage was GB taking HK by virtue of gunboat diplomacy (which can be represented in game by higher diplo technology level for better ships and better naval morale), and as you said, that wasn't until after the EU4 time period.

The Dutch also successfully conquered/colonized most of Indonesia during this timeperiod. And of course, the Portuguese were busy running around in India before the English got there.

Errr...and obviously the Russians did expand pretty far into Siberia.

But I do agree that some of the Asian nations (especially Manchu/Qing, as Novacat and others have said; there's no reason they should have significantly worse ideas than Ming) could use a buff. I'd vastly prefer that approach to just nerfing Russia, which has negative impacts on the European balance of power.

 

[Novacat]

Explain to me how then how it ends up colonising half the word (if it gets the iberian marrige 3/4s of it) and always stays on top every time. The biggest loss I have seen the Spiniards suffer is the Pirenese (spelling) to France and that happens only 1/10 times.

They start large, they have NIs built specifically for colonizing, and colonizing is all the Spaniards do, all game. They hardly ever conquer anyone aside from Native Americans and even then sometimes they dont even do that.

 

[Diplomate]

You'd better nerf the Ottomans, not Russia.

 

[Pilot00]

The thing is, Ethiopia, Swahili, and American civs wont need to worry about a vastly superior eastern tech power coming over to annihilate them. As soon as a western power lands near the Native Americans, they can westernize. Hordes cannot westernize off of Russia, however, because Russia is eastern tech.

As for Ming, I have already suggested, nearly a half dozen times now, that Manchu should have its NIs buffed in order to be a bulwark against Russia as well as allowing them to conquer Ming more easily. So I have been 'crying' about them, as you say.



Again, whats stopping the Russians from DOWing Genoa and seizing Genoa's exclaves? Again, you want to give the AI human level intelligence, you have to apply it to both sides of the coin.



Have you really played any other country than Russia? Are you really that clueless as to the effects of 'Distant overseas'?

Castille only gets 10% of the tax income and 20% of the production from distant overseas. They also only get 50% of the Manpower, 20% of the Land Force Limit, and 15% of the Naval Force Limit.



Yup. Its definatly a poison pill on Native American viability.

And the westernizing and rebuffing the colonists from Europe happed to all of us...let me check about that....0 times ever, YAYYYYYYYYYYYY! And that is not apparently human level planning. According to you its normal planning.......Waiting for a nation to to colonize the continental US or Mexico for who knows how many years and then plop westernising....While the horde to simply conquer a dozen or two dozen provinces to a western one is too complex.... Have you any idea of AI programming or you just throw words arround? (Judging from your posts so far I am 100% sure its the later).

So tell me something, have you ever played something else except hordes? Btw I never said I played only Russia, I have played countries from all the tech groups and all continents with a varrying decree of success. If I can pull Ironman on hard difficulty with minors and vassal states, then yes the AI needs a major rework and it needs to utilise everything in its arsenal. So stop flapping the gum about Human AI.Ill repeat for the final time I never said that and your counter arguement simply doesnt exist. You keep at it like a 12 year old and you continue insulting me despite posting irrelevant and idiotic posts.
Making the AI using all tools at each disposal is the only thing a developer needs to do. If you cant understand this, then you simply are hopeless.

On a side note you keep barging me to learn the game but it obvious from your lack of arguements and flamatory altitude that it is you who have no clue what are you talking about.

Awaiting your next round of trolling.

They start large, they have NIs built specifically for colonizing, and colonizing is all the Spaniards do, all game. They hardly ever conquer anyone aside from Native Americans and even then sometimes they dont even do that.

Exactly and the Russians have NI to help them take over all the easter tract. Meanwhile the hordes who are supposed to fall appart do so because they have a strong neighbour, thats what supposed to happen.

 

[Novacat]

So tell me something, have you ever played something else except hordes?

I have also played Ming, Austria, and Burgundy. I find Europe utterly boring, however.

Btw I never said I played only Russia, I have played countries from all the tech groups and all continents with a varrying decree of success.

I have a hard time believing that considering you were utterly clueless about how overseas colonies worked.

Exactly and the Russians have NI to help them take over all the easter tract. Meanwhile the hordes who are supposed to fall appart do so because they have a strong neighbour, thats what supposed to happen.

Russia is not supposed to be intoing China. Russia is also not supposed to have conquered all of Siberia by 1600.

 

[zodium]

Exactly and the Russians have NI to help them take over all the easter tract. Meanwhile the hordes who are supposed to fall appart do so because they have a strong neighbour, thats what supposed to happen.

Perhaps, but they do so far too early far too consistently. They fall apart because what else can they do? There's no check on Russian expansion whatsoever once you get past the first few tech levels. They can fight each other, which is exactly what they do, but they can't do any harm to Russia even on a good day. I've never personally seen Russia not form, ever, unless I intervene directly--that is, I march all of my troops up and carpet siege them. Even in a game where I deliberately reduced them to a 6 base tax country surrounded by Horde land near Perm, they still fielded 20k troops and obliterated the hordes. I've only ever seen one screenshot where Kazakh somehow ate its way into Russia.

The problem isn't that Russia is overpowered as such, it's that there's no dynamism in the region. Everything falls out the same way due to a combination of factors, and there's a strong case to be made for change from both a gameplay (stability is boring) and historical (hordes should usually fall, but not always, and should be a threat for longer than presently) point of view.

 

[Comes Imperii]

Exactly and the Russians have NI to help them take over all the easter tract. Meanwhile the hordes who are supposed to fall appart do so because they have a strong neighbour, thats what supposed to happen.

Not exactly. Russians already have the best territories in the game with regards to manpower and base tax. Russians belong to the eastern group which is incomparably better than steppe group.
Just this two advantages would allow Russia to expand confortambly into Asia. The NIs are there to turn Russia into a manpower monster resembling the Soviet Union which could sustain millions of losses in WW2.
Unfortunately, that stereotype is completely wrong. Russia won over the hordes because of its superior technology and state-organisation which are quite well represented by her belogning to the eastern tech.

 

[lordelenath]

A lot of NIs don't fit their nation in the EUIV timeframe very well though.

- Prussia definitely wasn't a military powerhouse in 1444 and one could argue that it's military wasn't as good as represented in the game. I'd say Prussia's strength was actually due to different factors, e.g. effective administration, tolerant society (which lead to a huge influx of people discriminated in their respective country), nationwide basic education system and so on
- The United Kingdom wasn't dominating naval warfare in 1444

And many more (including Russia).

 

[unmerged(652342)]

More like Russian nationalists vs everyone else.

- more like russophobes against common sense.